Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
RAKESH RANJAN VERMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
CRL.A.700/2006
Decided on : 15-2-2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Mohit K.Shah, Advocate.
Mr.Tarang Srivastava, APP.
The significance of the victim's age in determining consent and the importance of documentary evidence, such as birth certificates, in establishing age, were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Conviction - Rape - Sections 376/342 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 376/342 IPC - The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to rape and wrongful confinement under Sections 376/342 IPC. The court emphasized the importance of the victim's age in determining consent and highlighted the significance of documentary evidence such as birth certificates in establishing age. The court also considered the victim's behavior and statements in assessing consent and the absence of forcible confinement. The judgment reflects the court's interpretation of the legal provisions and their application in the specific factual context.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing offenses under Sections 376/342 IPC for allegedly raping and wrongfully confining the prosecutrix. The appellant appealed against the judgment, disputing the appreciation of evidence and alleging false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including contradictions in the victim's statements, and concluded that the physical relations between the appellant and the prosecutrix were consensual. The court found that the victim's behavior and statements indicated her consent and highlighted the absence of forcible confinement. The court affirmed the conviction under Section 376 IPC but set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the victim's age, consent, and the presence of wrongful confinement, as well as the appellant's denial of involvement and allegations of false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of the victim's age in determining consent and highlighted the importance of documentary evidence, such as birth certificates, in establishing age. The court also considered the victim's behavior and statements in assessing consent and the absence of forcible confinement.
Final Decision: The substantive sentence under Section 376 IPC was modified to three years, and the appellant was ordered to pay compensation to the prosecutrix. The appeal was disposed of, and the appellant was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 01.08.2006 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.24/2006 arising out of FIR No.454/2001 PS Kamla Market by which the appellant – Rakesh Ranjan Verma was convicted for committing offences under Sections 376/342 IPC, the present appeal has been filed by him. By an order dated 04.08.2006, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs.10,000/-under Section 376 IPC and RI for one year with fine Rs.1,000/-under Section 342 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. The case in brief as stated in the charge-sheet was that on the night intervening 16/17.12.2001 at about 03.00 a.m. the appellant committed rape upon the prosecutrix ‘X’(changed name) after wrongfully confining her at his jhuggi No.C-51/R-126, Thomson Road, Railway Colony, Delhi. The police machinery was set in motion on 18.12.2001 and the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A). ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The accused was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. The prosecution produced thirteen witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. Sushil Kumar Sahni appeared in defence as DW-1. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Material contradictions and infirmities in the statements of the witnesses were overlooked without cogent reasons. Initially, in her complaint (Ex.PW-1/A), the victim had not alleged if she was subjected to rape. Later on, she deviated from her earlier version and Section 376 IPC was added in the FIR. ‘X’ even had attempted to implicate CRPF officials to have ravished her and the victim’s father had taken her to the ‘camp’ where she was asked to identify the perpetrator of crime. The FSL report (Ex.PW-3/A) does not implicate the appellant as no sperms were seen in vaginal smear. It was emphasized that ‘X’ was above 16 year of age on the day of incident and as per the ossification report her age was in between 17 – 18 years. ‘X’ had alleged that at the time of commission of rape, string of her salwar was broken. However, when the ‘salwar’ was produced before the Court, the string was found intact. ‘X’ did not suffer any injury on her private organs. The appellant had got no opportunity to make submissions before the Trial Court at the time of final disposal due to absence of his lawyer. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that ‘X’ was below 16 years of age as her date of birth was 12.10.1986 as proved by PW-10 (Harish Chander). ‘X’ had no ulterior considerations to falsely implicate the appellant.
4. Admitted position is that ‘X’ and the appellant were acquainted with each other before the occurrence. The appellant lived in the neighbouring jhuggi in the same locality. The occurrence took place on the night intervening 16/17.12.2001 after ‘X’ had gone at around 03.00 a.m. to answer call of nature outside her jhuggi. It is alleged that the appellant dragged her to his jhuggi and after wrongfully confining her committed rape upon her against her wishes. On perusal of the statements of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution, it can be inferred with certainty that the physical relations between ‘X’ and the appellant (if any) in the jhuggi were consensual. After ‘X’ had left her jhuggi at around 03.00 a.m. purportedly to answer the call of nature, she did not re
